Actually, I have an even bigger confusion with this one time annual exemption.
If "represent[ing] or assist[ing] the defense in a criminal prosecution" is "someone of unfavorable character and morals", how come it is not so if only done once a year?
It is acceptable if it is unpaid, but makes you an unfavorable character if it is compensated?
It is immoral to do it twice, but if it is only once then I am okay?
Total confusion as to the purpose, and intent.
Was this written by a committee or focus group? mrgreen
Here is
5. Members may not, by virtue of their employment be in a position to represent or assist the defense in a criminal prosecution, unless 6
1. They are employed by an entity (military of governmental) that does not distinguish between prosecution or defense (An example of such incidences are military attorneys and/or investigators who are directed to work for the prosecution at times or the defense at other times).
2. They are a member of an International chapter whose member's legal system does not distinguish between prosecution or defense, provided the member must reside and practice in that country and not perform defense work in any country that does make that distinction.
3. They are a member who is subpoenaed to testify by the defense in a matter they investigated for their agency or employer.
4. They are a member who is employed by a software/hardware vendor who must explain how their company's product operates or functions as part of a service or legal agreement when sold.
5. They have received an exemption from a majority vote of their chapter membership, after a proper notice consistent with these bylaws. Such exemptions are
1. Limited to one per year, per member;
2. Exemptions can only be granted by chapters in cases where the member volunteers their expertise and is paid no compensation;
3. The International Executive Committee may revoke such an exemption within 30 days of receiving notice of the chapter's granting of same. If no decision is made by the International Executive Committee within 30 days, the Chapter memberships vote stands. However, a revocation of an exemption by the International Committee is final.
It is acceptable if it is unpaid, but makes you an unfavorable character if it is compensated?
It is immoral to do it twice, but if it is only once then I am okay?
It depends.
Did you get your application approved on a wednesday in a month without "r" on a leap year? roll
jaclaz
I was not trying to be flippant; I am seriously wondering about why such, in my opinion burdensome and questionable, requirement is included within their agreement.
My thing has always been why would you want to join an organization who carry such beliefs.
I was not trying to be flippant; I am seriously wondering about why such, in my opinion burdensome and questionable, requirement is included within their agreement.
I was not trying to be flippant; I am seriously wondering about why such, in my opinion burdensome and questionable, requirement is included within their agreement.
Yep, but you mentioned a committee or focus group and from experience that is the overall logic (please read as "utter lack of logic") that comes out from them.
I too find it serious, being on the prosecution or on the defense side it is not, as I see it, like being the "good guys" vs. the "bad guys", in theory it is about justice, that not so casually (besides being bllind 😯 ) holds a balance.
More than that, I find that (unlike solicitors/lawyers that of course have the right and duty to "take sides") a forensic expert should be after the facts as they are, no matter if they are against or in favour of the suspect.
jaclaz
But yet I still have run into plenty of LE who detest anyone who does defense work, until (everyone say it with me, all together now) THEY ARE ARRESTED. Think someone in LE can't be arrested or wont be and need an expert, think again.
I was not trying to be flippant; I am seriously wondering about why such, in my opinion burdensome and questionable, requirement is included within their agreement.
Yep, but you mentioned a committee or focus group and from experience that is the overall logic (please read as "utter lack of logic") that comes out from them.
I too find it serious, being on the prosecution or on the defense side it is not, as I see it, like being the "good guys" vs. the "bad guys", in theory it is about justice, that not so casually (besides being bllind 😯 ) holds a balance.
More than that, I find that (unlike solicitors/lawyers that of course have the right and duty to "take sides") a forensic expert should be after the facts as they are, no matter if they are against or in favour of the suspect.
jaclaz
What I am trying to say is if you lie to join the HTCIA you have some moral issues. I mean really does being part of some organization mean that much someone that they would consider ruining their lively hood in an attempt to be a member. Further if you lie to join the HTCIA and you get outed on the stand testifying for the defense you just ruined not only your reputation but also the defenses case. Your name will spread like wild fire through both sides as an unfavorable source.
Now that I read this story, what do you think I'm going to do next time the defense totes an expert ? I'm going to inquire if the HTCIA has him listed as a member, anyone from his office or any address listed by this person(s) as a member of HTCIA.
Another note is sometimes people are asking some real questions regarding an investigation, imagine being on the defense side and being privy to information you normally would not be allowed to hear. Don't you think that is a bit unethical on the examiners or even attorneys part. I feel it's like cheating to win.
Trials are a game.
Granted they are a SERIOUS game, but nonetheless its a high end chess game. I have had defense attorneys hate me and I had defense attorneys shake my hand after a trial. If you ( not you, just general statement ) have not testified a lot or been cross examined you can get the feeling of it being a personal attack on you. But after sometime you end up learning it isn't personal, just business. But either way if someone in LE commits a crime they deserve to be arrested just like anyone else and they should be afforded a fair trial just like anyone else. Trust me no one wants a crooked cop working next to them. Heck I don't want a crooked or dirty anything working with me.
I can also say on the flip side I have 2 defense experts. One was arrested for check fraud, basically cashing a check that didn't belong to him. Which in itself requires him clearly lie and impersonate another. And the second person embellished on their credentials. They pretty much said they had certain certifications they never did and gave expert testimony in cases that they never were part of.
So it goes both ways.
When you boil the HTCIA down to its rudimentary parts its retired LE working for companies trying to stay in contact with working LE and district attorneys so when something happens they have someone to reach out to. It's a place where things can be discussed or asked hopefully without the fear of having some defense attorney or defense expert use some comment post or snippet against you in some way, shape or form. Sadly it is obvious form this exact posting that their are members that work both sides of the fence. But this is why you should never post information about cases in a public or perceived to be public forum because you just never know.
I feel like this topic is similar to that of discussing why there is no playoff system in college football
Discussion starts… most people believe it is ridiculous… discussion goes dormant for a while… repeat.
Only problem with college football is that there are not other clubs to join.
In DFIR, there are… well, not many, but some.
Actually,
Who sets these standards?
When you boil the HTCIA down to its rudimentary parts its retired LE working for companies trying to stay in contact with working LE and district attorneys so when something happens they have someone to reach out to. It's a place where things can be discussed or asked hopefully without the fear of having some defense attorney or defense expert use some comment post or snippet against you in some way, shape or form.
From the above description it seems halfway between a secret society and a lobby. 😯
jaclaz